There’s a lot of discussion about why Kerry beat Bush in the debates last night. Bush supporters are claiming that Jim Lehrer was biased and gave Bush harder questions than he gave Kerry. Some say it was because of camera angles and that Kerry was taller. Although the problem with Kerry being taller was made worse because Bush slumped at the podium, making him shorter. Some people think that Kerry to unfair advantage of Bush because Kerry is smarter. But I have a different opinion.

I think Kerry had the advantage in the debate because reality was on his side. Iraq has become a quagmire and it’s now obvious that invading Iraq was a bad decision. The economy is in shambles and so is foreign policy. Bush has used poor judgment for the last 4 years and because of that – it made it easier for Kerry to argue his position. Bush would have had the advantage if he had a record of success to run on rather than a record of failure. It seem that if a sitting president wants to have an advantage in a presidential debate – that doing a good job would be a good debate strategy.

Reader Comments

I was concerned about the choice of Lehrer, but I came away thinking that he did a pretty good job.

I had the same concerns, but thought Lehrer pulled it off quite well. What I found particularly heartening were the news broadcasters ignoring the Bush demands on format and using a split screen. This allowed the country to see just what type of men are wanting the job of being leader of the free world.

Could it be true that Kerry won the debate because he broke the rules?

Someone told me last night that Kerry was on the debate team in college. Is that true? If it is true, it speaks wonders of his inability. A guy who was on the debate team in college, and has been debating on the Senate floor for years sholud have done MUCH better than Kerry did.

I suppose if Kerry was to have done really spectacular in the debate, he would have reduced his opponent to a quivering, fidgeting, lump of confusion stupidly blinking into space trying to think of something to say.

Have to keep in mind that Bush is, before all else, the President of The United States. He has to be extremely careful what he says in public, lest everyone including other world leaders interpret his words as national policy! He cannot spout off and tap-dance on his opponent’s windpipe like the other guy can. Kerry is the guy with his face pressed to the store window outside looking in and itching to grab a handful of fresh-baked cookies. Also I think Bush was constrained to be too presidential toward his opponent: don’t be vicious or impolite and soften the attack. That’s why these excuses for ‘presidential’ debates are and have always been such a joke.